I thought I'd start a thread on Abortion

angelica

Medicated-Genius wrote:

Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.

I am aware of this.


And still, it remains a unique individual with it's own DNA, even while dependent on it's mother.

angelica

http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html

There are many legitimate scientific reasons why abortion has a pall cast over it, besides the moral judgments of people and society.

Women can go through major issues after.

decides2dream

Medicated-Genius wrote:

Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.

exactly.
and even as a 'viable fetus' it STILL cannot survive without it's mother until a certain period it time.


as to it's uniquness..that only matter if it actually matters to you. being unique, in and of itself...to me has no bearing, on ANYthing. many, many things are 'unique'....i said as much earlier:

decides2dream wrote:

as to 'unique DNA'...quite honestly, so what? that's it? b/c it's a unique cluster of cells...it 'deserves' to live? that's it, that's the arguement for it? 'unique DNA' dies off naturally, all the time.....even that unique DNA in the uterus. it is said that almost all sexually active woman have sponatneous abortion - aka miscarriage - once in their life...and it's so early on, she is unaware. 'unique DNA' alone does not 'deserve' anything imo.

and absolutely...there are MANY negative consequences with abortion. there are many negative consequences with MANY things in this world. there are also a LOT of 'positives'...for lack of a better term. i am sure there are some women who may regret abortion...no doubt. but there are just as many who don't. bottomline...it's still CHOICE. i personally have never met a woman who had an abrotion and regretted it...and almost all that i personally know went on to have families later on in their lives, and are happy and content with their life choices. as in all things in this world...there is good and bad , and mixed results. however, none should limit or do away with ones access and choice to make such decisions themselves.



anyhoooo...it's LEGAL....so i am good with that. i would really LIKE to see more education and access to BC and especially the morning after pill...and i think we would see a direct correlation with less abortion. to me, abortion is a last option...but an option i ALWAYS want to see avaialble. as long as it is...i couldn't care less what anyone else thinks. as long as a woman has the choice to make for herself...good.


i've had enough abortion talk for one evening i think ...it's been awhile......have a good one all wherever you are!

Medicated-Genius

scb wrote:

Once again, how is a bit of DNA a "being"? And if it only becomes a being after a certain point, what's wrong with having an abortion before that point?

None of this really matters, though, as long as you continue to speak in the first person.

I understand angelicas point. The DNA you scrape off your face in the shower, is a lot different to the DNA of a forming embryo. For a start, the skin cells you wash away are already dead, they are not living tissue, nor are they complete DNA. An embryo is. It has all the DNA in place to form a new and unique human being. Dead skin cells don't.
The distinction though, is whether one considers an embryo a human being, or a potential human being. And if one considers it a potential human being, at what point does this become so. From a medical point of view, or biological one, it is a blastocyst from conception to around two weeks, a cluster of dividing cells. From two weeks to 12 weeks, it is an embryo. More than a cluster of cells, it has divided and grown to have tissue and partial organ systems. From 12 weeks to birth, it is a fetus. And medically, a fetus is not considered viable until 24 weeks. Thats not to say I agree with late abortions, which in my opinion, is beyond about 12 weeks.

_

angelica wrote:

Abortions create many harmful consequences for women, as evidenced by websites that foster healing for women, like:

http://www.afterabortion.com/



The following are sources that show the consequences of abortion on women:

- Thomas Strahan's Major Articles and Books Concerning the Detrimental Effects of Abortion
. Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn.[/b
- "Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage,"
- "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions,"
- "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis
- The Long-Term Psychological Effects of Abortion, Portsmouth, N.H.:
- Herman, Trauma and Recovery
- Adler, "Sample Attrition in Studies of Psycho-social Sequelae of Abortion: How great a problem."
- Speckhard, "Postabortion Syndrome: An Emerging Public Health Concern," Journal of Social Issues,
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Soc. Sci. & Med
- Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion
- "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine
- "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence,
- "Characteristics of Pregnant Women Reporting Previous Induced Abortions," Bulletin World Health Organization,
- "Outcome of First Delivery After 2nd Trimester Two Stage Induced Abortion: A Controlled Cohort Study," Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica
- "Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss," JAMA, 243:2495-2499, June 27, 1980.
- "Pregnancy Complications Following Legally Induced Abortion: An Analysis of the Population with Special Reference to Prematurity,"
- "An Overview: Maternal Nicotine and Caffeine Consumption and Offspring Outcome," Neurobehavioral Toxicology and Tertology, 4(4):421-427, (1982).
- "Sexual Experience and Drinking Among Women in a U.S. National Survey," Archives of Sexual Behavior,
- "Patterns of Alcohol and Cigarette Use in Pregnancy,"
- "Stressful Life Events and Alcohol Problems Among Women Seen at a Detoxification Center," Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
- "Perinatal Cocaine and Methamphetamine Exposure Maternal and Neo-Natal Correlates,"
- "Cocaine Use During Pregnancy Prevalence and Correlates,"
- "Drug Use Among Adolescent Mothers: Profile of Risk,"
- Speckhard, Psycho-social Stress Following Abortion,
- "Psychoses Following Therapeutic Abortion, Am. J. of Psychiatry
- Ritual Mourning in Anorexia Nervosa,"
- "Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse,"
- "Relationship between Abortion and Child Abuse," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,
- Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 129-30, describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger.
- "Contraceptive Practice and Repeat Induced Abortion: An Epidemiological Investigation," J. Biosocial Science,
- "First and Repeated Abortions: A Study of Decision-Making and Delay," J. Biosocial Science,
- "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "The Abortion Experience in Private Practice," Women and Loss: Psychobiological Perspectives,
- "Predictive Factors in Emotional Response to Abortion: King's Termination Study - IV," Social Science and Medicine,
- "Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions," Obstetrics and Gynecology,
- "Repeat Abortion: Is it a Problem?" Family Planning Perspectives
- "The Social and Economic Correlates of Pregnancy Resolution Among Adolescents in New York by Race and Ethnicity: A Multivariate Analysis," Am. J. of Public Health,
- , "Repeat Abortions - Why More?" Family Planning Perspectives
- The Repeat Abortion Patient," Family Planning Perspectives,
- "Reflection on Repeated Abortions: The meanings and motivations," Journal of Social Work Practice
- "Repeat Abortion, Blaming the Victims," Am. J. of Public Health,

The idea that abortion leads to psychological problems in women is a myth that has long-since been de-bunked. Just because someone has a website doesn't give credibility to the bullshit they post. As for the articles you listed, I'd like better sources, please.

Also, even if there was a correlation between high rates of abortion and high rates of psychological problems, that would in no way indicate causation. You could just as easily say that women with pre-existing mental instability are more likely to have abortions as you could say that women who have abortion are more likely to have mental instability.

angelica

Medicated-Genius wrote:

I understand angelicas point. The DNA you scrape off your face in the shower, is a lot different to the DNA of a forming embryo. For a start, the skin cells you wash away are already dead, they are not living tissue, nor are they complete DNA. An embryo is. It has all the DNA in place to form a new and unique human being. Dead skin cells don't.
The distinction though, is whether one considers an embryo a human being, or a potential human being.

I appreciate knowing my point has been heard. Thank-you.

And if one considers it a potential human being, at what point does this become so. From a medical point of view, or biological one, it is a blastocyst from conception to around two weeks, a cluster of dividing cells. From two weeks to 12 weeks, it is an embryo. More than a cluster of cells, it has divided and grown to have tissue and partial organ systems. From 12 weeks to birth, it is a fetus. And medically, a fetus is not considered viable until 24 weeks. Thats not to say I agree with late abortions, which in my opinion, is beyond about 12 weeks.

I also appreciate your discernment and ability to see beyond bias.

_

angelica wrote:

http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html

There are many legitimate scientific reasons why abortion has a pall cast over it, besides the moral judgments of people and society.

Women can go through major issues after.

Are you seriously quoting this BS as a legitimate medical source? A website that still says that abortion leads to breast cancer? That myth has been long-since de-bunked as well.

Here's what the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the National Cancer Institute have to say about it:

ACOG website wrote:

ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk


Washington, DC -- There is no evidence supporting a causal link between induced abortion and subsequent development of breast cancer, according to a committee opinion issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG's opinion is in agreement with the conclusion reached at the National Cancer Institute's Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, which met in March 2003.

ACOG's review of the research on a link between abortion and later development of breast cancer concluded that studies on the issue were inconsistent and difficult to interpret, mainly due to study design flaws. Some studies showed either a significant decrease in breast cancer risk after abortion or found no effect. The most recent studies from China, the United Kingdom, and the US found no effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk.

I find it very disturbing that anti-abortion people can be so quick to discard actual medical science.

angelica

scb wrote:

The idea that abortion leads to psychological problems in women is a myth that has long-since been de-bunked. Just because someone has a website doesn't give credibility to the bullshit they post. As for the articles you listed, I'd like better sources, please.

Also, even if there was a correlation between high rates of abortion and high rates of psychological problems, that would in no way indicate causation. You could just as easily say that women with pre-existing mental instability are more likely to have abortions as you could say that women who have abortion are more likely to have mental instability.

The vast wealth of scientific studies done have not been debunked. Politics has stepped in and spin has been put on abortion. See below article.

Did you check the "After Abortion" site, where real women go dealing with the emotional/spiritual/physical traumas they've endured due to their abortions? It can't be denied. They post about this on the message board. Can you debunk that? Why would you want to deny what these women experience if you are concerned for women?







from the afterabortion.com site:



"I just finished browsing the "Sarafem" (softer name for prozac) website http://www.sarafem.com, and learning about Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder, (PMDD) which is the new 'official' medically approved diagnostic name for pre-menstrual syndrome. The Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical company has unveiled a new advertising campaign to help women with this problem, (the help being their medication) and to promote understanding and awareness of PMDD as a real health issue for women.
So Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder joins Post Partum Depression, as another hormone - related illness for women, that is recognized as 'real' by the medical community, has a name, and can be treated. PMDD is estimated to affect 5 to 10% of women in their childbearing years. PPD is estimated to affect 20% of women who have given birth.
There's another similar condition for women, that affects an unknown number of women, called Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS). PASS is not medically recognized as a 'real' problem, nor does it have the backing of the at-large medical community.
Why not?
Because PASS is stuck in the political war of abortion. Because of politics and money, "PASS" is not recognized as real, yet PMDD and PPD are. Women suffering from PMDD and PPD are given help, support and treatment. Women with PASS are not, and are left to suffer alone, in silence.
Let's start with the politics angle. There's nothing political about PMDD or a menstrual period. Every woman, Christian, Atheist, prochoice, prolife, gets their period. And a prochoicer wouldn't complain about women getting treated for PMDD, or say that it hurts the cause of women's freedom of choice. A prolifer would not use Post Partum Depression as a way to try and discourage childbirth, and say that childbirth or menstruation 'hurts' women, or that childbirth is 'killing' women. (even though some women die from childbirth complications). Those issues are non-political women's health issues. There's no 'bad side' to be on with these problems.
Yet with Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, it's very different. If a woman suffers from PASS after an abortion, the concern for her actual health problem disappears, and she becomes a pawn in the rhetoric of the abortion war. She gets no official treatment or support for her health problem. She gets told what she is experiencing does not exist, or 'only happens to women with previous psychological problems'. (As if having a previous psychological problem would suddenly mean that you wouldn't need treatment, support or help for your new problem!?)
The prochoice majority says PASS 'does not exist', and that anti-abortionists are using it to try and scare women away from abortion, and to try to influence lawmakers that abortion is dangerous. The prolifers agree that PASS exists, but they use it (as the prochoicers fear) as a way to discourage abortion, and as a way to help revoke abortion rights. The woman who is suffering is left alone, as the two sides argue, and the medical community stays out of it.
The medical community does not acknowledge PASS as real, because they don't have enough scientific information from research. Where does the money to do research come from? Grants from pharmaceutical companies. The drug companies that fund medical research that allows a disorder to be diagnosed and 'medically accepted' will not go anywhere near research for PASS. Why? Because they don't want to touch the political suicide that anything related to abortion is. RU-486 is being manufactured in China, because no American drug company even considered making it.
The recent RU-486 FDA approval sparked ongoing protests and boycotts of the Searle company that manufactured only a 'partner' drug (Misoprostol aka Cytotec) that works with RU-486. RU-486 is normally used in combination with Misoprostol (Cytotec), an ulcer drug that also causes uterine contractions. RU-486 blocks progesterone, a hormone needed to maintain pregnancy, in a woman's body, and Cytotec, taken a few days later, causes her to miscarry the disrupted pregnancy. Even though Cytotec has been used successfully and safely with RU-486 in Europe over the past ten years, Searle could not take the political pressure. The protest was so strong that it prompted the Searle company to send a letter out warning doctors "not to prescribe the drug to induce an abortion, and only to use it for it's 'approved' use, ulcer treatments."
There is such an uproar over anything related to abortion, that drug companies don't want to fund any research into anything abortion related. Why jeopardize the profitability of all their base drugs, by looking into something controversial, that may bring them protests and boycotts from both sides of the abortion war, regardless of how their research turns out?
So without research dollars to fund the studies, the medical community must keep to it's current theory, that PASS 'does not exist'. Numerous medical illnesses never existed until companies thought they might be able to create a drug to treat them, and therefore make a profit. Once enough money was spent on research for them, the diseases became 'real', and were accepted and promoted as such. PMDD and PPD were two such illnesses. As in the past were schizophrenia, manic depression, high blood pressure and AIDS. But when these illnesses were not 'recognized' by the medical community, and did not have an official name or recommended treatment from the medical community yet, did that mean these diseases did not exist? Does that mean no one suffered, before an official name, treatment and official diagnosis was announced? Of course not.
Even though the causes and reasons for PASS are similar to those for PMDD and PPD, PASS is not recognized as a 'real' illness. The causes of PASS are theorized by me to be hormonal and situational. This has proven to be correct again and again, by women who come to the PASS website, (http://www.afterabortion.com) for help. So are the causes of PMDD and PPD.

decides2dream

Medicated-Genius wrote:

The distinction though, is whether one considers an embryo a human being, or a potential human being. And if one considers it a potential human being, at what point does this become so. From a medical point of view, or biological one, it is a blastocyst from conception to around two weeks, a cluster of dividing cells. From two weeks to 12 weeks, it is an embryo. More than a cluster of cells, it has divided and grown to have tissue and partial organ systems. From 12 weeks to birth, it is a fetus. And medically, a fetus is not considered viable until 24 weeks. Thats not to say I agree with late abortions, which in my opinion, is beyond about 12 weeks.

exactly.
there is distinction to be made...at least for many of us.
i believe, my stats may not be entirely accurate but i am far too lazy to verify ...but i am pretty sure 89%, if not more, of abortions are performed under 12 weeks.

decides2dream wrote:

one can see a zygote, an embryo as a distinct human being. i see it as the possibility of a distinct human being. neither are right..or wrong.....and we are free to choose. and most especially in regards to 'the sanctity of life'...when exactly was this designated? truly? it gets bandied about a LOT....but just about every creature on this planet does not treat life as sacred. life simply is....and then it is not...and that IS the cycle of life. things die of their own accord ALL the time, things are killed all the time...cells...plants...animals...humans....and so it goes. if someone wants to place higher 'value' on humans....all fine and good. if they want to do so with a zygote...go for it. just do so for youself. animals of ALL kinds have killed off their own, throut existence....it is not really an 'unnatural' thing at all. humans ARE animals. i don't have a problem with it.

and i point this out again b/c it is true...it is NOT 'unnatural'...it is man-made 'law'....or religious belief...or whatever else...that we arbitrarily may make the distinction of the 'sanctity' of life. and many may argue that's what makes us 'better' than animals and fine if that is what you believe...but it's still an arbitrary destinction...and a choice.


interestingly...i think it was outofbreath? who a long while ago had placed some quiz here and it dealt with different cultures, and scenarios...and what is acceptable or not and would we agree or not on the rightness or wrongness of certain issues...based on knowing what different groups viewed. it IS a choice we all make, and partly b/c we can...b/c we are human......but it's a distinction we MAKE...and choose....and it certainly is not right or wrong...or going against nature, etc. it's just a choice.



and again.......lots of women may have problems after abortion...and lots of women may not. the statistics go both ways...depending on what you choose to read.....so neither is 'definitive' for what experience a woman may or may not have. neither scenario should factor into ever disallowing each individual woman the CHOICE to make for herself. lots of people go thru traumas after deaths, divorce, numerous life events...some of their choosing, some totally out of their control.....such is life.

angelica

"Not every woman who gets her period suffers from PMDD.
But those that do get support, help, and recognition of their problem.

Not every woman who has a baby suffers from PPD
But those that do get support, help, and recognition of their problem.

Not every woman who has an abortion suffers from PASS
But those that do get nothing. They are ignored.
We are out here. Don't ignore us any more."

_

angelica wrote:

Did you check the "After Abortion" site, where real women go dealing with the emotional/spiritual/physical traumas they've endured due to their abortions? It can't be denied. They post about this on the message board. Can you debunk that? Why would you want to deny what these women experience if you are concerned for women?

Yes, I went to the site. And I saw that's another one of those anti-abortion propaganda sites that spews anecdotes as medical fact.

I'm sure there are some women who have emotional problems after having abortions. And I respect their experiences and feelings. But I have no respect for trying to take a few select experiences and use them to create a generalization that creates a biased anti-abortion slant and scares women who are faced with the decision. Most women, in fact, feel relief after having an abortion. Some women feel emotional and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to feel when your hormones are changing and/or you've just lost a child (whether by your choice or not). It can be an emotional experience. That's not the same as being a traumatic experience. For those who do experience deeper issues after having abortions, there's no telling that the women wouldn't have felt the same way after having a miscarriage or an appendectomy or anything else.

Medicated-Genius

scb wrote:

The idea that abortion leads to psychological problems in women is a myth that has long-since been de-bunked. Just because someone has a website doesn't give credibility to the bullshit they post. As for the articles you listed, I'd like better sources, please.

Also, even if there was a correlation between high rates of abortion and high rates of psychological problems, that would in no way indicate causation. You could just as easily say that women with pre-existing mental instability are more likely to have abortions as you could say that women who have abortion are more likely to have mental instability.

It would probably also be quite possible to find a whole stack of studies and research papers into the effects of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. While I don't think the studies angelica quoted are invalid necessarily, as with everything, there are two sides of the coin.
We can all talk about birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies until we're blue in the face. The fact remains, it does happen, and it will always happen. Once a woman is in that situation, the issue of birth control is kind of a moot point. The question is then, should she have this baby, or shouldn't she? And if this is an unwanted pregnancy, in whose best interests is forcing her to have the baby is it?
In my line of work, for the most part, outcomes are happy. By the time I see women, they have made their decisions, and most times have planned to have a baby, so the question of unwanted doesn't really come up. But there have certainly been occasions where I have delivered women ( or very young girls) of their babies and you just know the future is really grim for them, and their baby. It would be interesting to do a study on the rates of depression among women who have continued with unwanted pregnancies, the rates of child abuse and neglect, the rates of babies in garbage bins outside McDonald's and see the correlation between all of this.

angelica

scb wrote:

Yes, I went to the site. And I saw that's another one of those anti-abortion propaganda sites that spews anecdotes as medical fact.

I'm sure there are some women who have emotional problems after having abortions. And I respect their experiences and feelings. But I have no respect for trying to take a few select experiences and use them to create a generalization that creates a biased anti-abortion slant and scares women who are faced with the decision. Most women, in fact, feel relief after having an abortion. Some women feel emotional and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to feel when your hormones are changing and/or you've just lost a child (whether by your choice or not). It can be an emotional experience. That's not the same as being a traumatic experience. For those who do experience deeper issues after having abortions, there's no telling that the women wouldn't have felt the same way after having a miscarriage or an appendectomy or anything else.

wow.

angelica

Medicated-Genius wrote:

It would probably also be quite possible to find a whole stack of studies and research papers into the effects of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy. While I don't think the studies angelica quoted are invalid necessarily, as with everything, there are two sides of the coin.
We can all talk about birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies until we're blue in the face. The fact remains, it does happen, and it will always happen. Once a woman is in that situation, the issue of birth control is kind of a moot point. The question is then, should she have this baby, or shouldn't she? And if this is an unwanted pregnancy, in whose best interests is forcing her to have the baby is it?
In my line of work, for the most part, outcomes are happy. By the time I see women, they have made their decisions, and most times have planned to have a baby, so the question of unwanted doesn't really come up. But there have certainly been occasions where I have delivered women ( or very young girls) of their babies and you just know the future is really grim for them, and their baby. It would be interesting to do a study on the rates of depression among women who have continued with unwanted pregnancies, the rates of child abuse and neglect, the rates of babies in garbage bins outside McDonald's and see the correlation between all of this.

Again, I appreciate your ability to discern information.

I personally continued an unplanned pregnancy, living in poverty, and developed severe post-partum depression and post-partum severe OCD that lasted for well over ten years.

You are absolutely correct, we have the whole coin. Both 'sides'. Denial of aspects of the coin is...denial...and ignorance.

Medicated-Genius

angelica wrote:

Again, I appreciate your ability to discern information.

I personally continued an unplanned pregnancy, living in poverty, and developed severe post-partum depression and post-partum severe OCD that lasted for well over ten years.

You are absolutely correct, we have the whole coin. Both 'sides'. Denial of aspects of the coin is...denial...and ignorance.

I too continued with an unplanned pregnancy. I have no regrets about that, and didn't suffer any depression or ill effects. I am very sorry you went through that and hope it is behind you. Judging from your posts, you have found more of yourself and are in a much better place.

I suppose though, even unplanned and unwanted is a distinction in itself. While my pregnancy was unplanned, and I was very young, certainly by the time I made my choice, she became a very wanted baby. Sadly, there are lots of women who never feel this. The pregnancy was unplanned and they never want it, and to continue with it would be a disaster for them. Of those who chose to terminate the pregnancy, I guess we will never know if they may have reached a point where they connected with their pregnancy and became attached and emotionally invested in it.
I think it's an incredibly hard decision for a woman to make, regardless of her circumstance and it's a heartbreaking thing to have to do. I think it's rarely an unthought about quick fix, and it's very sad for her when she feels she has to do it. I do believe she has a right to that choice though.

angelica

Medicated-Genius wrote:

I too continued with an unplanned pregnancy. I have no regrets about that, and didn't suffer any depression or ill effects. I am very sorry you went through that and hope it is behind you. Judging from your posts, you have found more of yourself and are in a much better place.

Thank-you so much for your warm sentiments. I feel very blessed by my life experiences and what they have taught me.

I suppose though, even unplanned and unwanted is a distinction in itself.

very very true.

While my pregnancy was unplanned, and I was very young, certainly by the time I made my choice, she became a very wanted baby.

Mine also became very wanted. And considering the years of torment I went through after, I never regretted my decision. I also always knew my son was not responsible for what happened to me. My son has been a blessing to me in ways I cannot describe! Again, I am very blessed!

Sadly, there are lots of women who never feel this. The pregnancy was unplanned and they never want it, and to continue with it would be a disaster for them. Of those who chose to terminate the pregnancy, I guess we will never know if they may have reached a point where they connected with their pregnancy and became attached and emotionally invested in it.
I think it's an incredibly hard decision for a woman to make, regardless of her circumstance and it's a heartbreaking thing to have to do. I think it's rarely an unthought about quick fix, and it's very sad for her when she feels she has to do it. I do believe she has a right to that choice though.

I agree 100%, which is why I don't judge women who face these tough questions. The less-than-ideal outcomes are painful to deal with. These women need support, understanding, etc.

timsinclair

Medicated-Genius wrote:

Yes but it receives this DNA from its parents and until it's a viable fetus, cannot survive without its mother and wouldn't exist without her or its father.

When the nucleus' of the sperm and egg fuse, a cell is created that has its own unique DNA sequence, it is not part of the mother or the father. Saying that it cannot survive without the mother is irrelevant since this is the case even after the baby is born, unlike many animals, humans are completely dependant on a mother (or sustitute adult) for at least a year after birth. Furthermore, if you follow this logic to its conclusion, the many disabled folk who are completely dependant on medical machinery and drugs would also forfeit their human right to life. I suggest that the only reason we affirm the right to life for the 1 year old child and the medically dependant yet deny it for the unborn child is that killing the former would confront us with VISIBLE bloodshed whilst the later is done somewhere so hidden that we can live in denial that a killing has really taken place.

the real question is not about dependancy but when the fetus is a 'Human being' with human rights. In this country (england) we can legally abort up to 24 weeks but medical advances have meant that babies can now survive if they are born at 22 weeks. This will undoubtedly be further reduced so it cannot be used as the point where the fetus 'becomes human'. the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed.

Abuskedti

timsinclair wrote:

When the nucleus' of the sperm and egg fuse, a cell is created that has its own unique DNA sequence, it is not part of the mother or the father. Saying that it cannot survive without the mother is irrelevant since this is the case even after the baby is born, unlike many animals, humans are completely dependant on a mother (or sustitute adult) for at least a year after birth. Furthermore, if you follow this logic to its conclusion, the many disabled folk who are completely dependant on medical machinery and drugs would also forfeit their human right to life. I suggest that the only reason we affirm the right to life for the 1 year old child and the medically dependant yet deny it for the unborn child is that killing the former would confront us with VISIBLE bloodshed whilst the later is done somewhere so hidden that we can live in denial that a killing has really taken place.

the real question is not about dependancy but when the fetus is a 'Human being' with human rights. In this country (england) we can legally abort up to 24 weeks but medical advances have meant that babies can now survive if they are born at 22 weeks. This will undoubtedly be further reduced so it cannot be used as the point where the fetus 'becomes human'. the truth is that it 'becomes human' when the sperm and egg fuse and a new life is formed.

along those lines....

when a law enforcement agency becomes aware that a child's life is threatened by its parents, it will take the child away, feed it and protect it. If a fetus is exactly that, why does the government not take it, feed it and protect it?

Collin

Good question, Abu.

catefrances

angelica wrote:

What I see is that it is an actual person. It's unique and individual, even as it resides temporarily in its mother.

you angelica are full of shit. regardless of the amount of time an in utero child spends inside its mother, its DNA whilst being unique, is the totality of its mother and its father. an embryo is not a person. tis debatable whether a foetus is a viable entity and therefore a person, so what exactly is your point i ask?